scholarly journals Second Line Treatment Strategies in Multiple Myeloma: A Referral-Center Experience

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 819-819
Author(s):  
Sarah Goldman-Mazur ◽  
Alissa Visram ◽  
S Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Past ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Recommendations for 2 nd line treatment for relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients have been changing over the past two decades, given the introduction of novel agents, different side-effect profiles, and attempts at more individualized treatment approaches. We designed this study to characterize how 2 nd line treatment strategies have evolved over the last two decades for MM patients. Methods Patients with MM with at least one relapse treated with a 2 nd line regimen, seen at Mayo Clinic between 2003-2021, were included. To visualize trends in treatment choices we divided the study period into 2-year intervals and for descriptive purpose the period was divided into three 6-year intervals. We used "100% stacked area" charts to show how the constituent parts of the whole have changed over time. The height of each colored stack represents the proportion of patients in that category at a given point in time. Results A total of 1439 patients were included. Patients were diagnosed between 2001 and 2018, the initiation of 2 nd line treatment occurred between June 2003 and February 2021. Median age at diagnosis was 62.7 years (interquartile range, 55.8-69.3), 60.0% were male. International Staging System stage I was present in 23.5% of patients, stage II in 32.9% and stage III in 28.8%. In the 1 st line therapy novel agents were used in 82.8% of cases, regimens based on proteasome inhibitors (PI) in 26.5%, immunomodulatory drugs (IMID) in 42.0% and combination of PI+IMID in 21.1%. Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) was performed in 50.1% of patients, and maintenance after 1 st line was used in 25.2%. For 2 nd line treatment, during 2003-2008 the majority were treated with doublets (70.5%), followed by triplets (14.8%) and salvage ASCT (7.7%) (Figure 1A). Patients were treated with IMID or PI-based therapy (50.7% and 21.8%, respectively); only 3.7% received PI+IMID and 20.1% of patients received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. The most frequently used regimens were lenalidomide-dexamethasone (RD, 32.2%) and bortezomib-dexamethasone (VD, 18.1%, Figure 1B). Between 2009-2014, the use of triplets in 2 nd line increased (43.0%), although doublets were still more common (50.9%). Like previous years, IMID-based therapy was most frequently used (37.3%), however, the use of PI-based therapy increased (36.0%). PI+IMID-based therapy was implemented in 17.9% of patient, and 27.3% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens included: RD (29.4%), bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (CYBORD, 17.4%), bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (VRD, 13.4%) and VD (13.3%). Finally, during 2015-2021, triplets were most common (68.9%), followed by doublets (23.0%). IMID- and PI+IMID-based therapies were most often implemented (34.2% and 31.1%, respectively), followed by PI-based therapy (26.8%). 28.1% of patients received monoclonal antibodies; only 15.9% received alkylating agents/anthracyclines. Most frequently used regimens include RD (13.8%), carfilzomib-RD (11.6%), daratumumab-RD (9.8%), CYBORD (9.3%), VRD (8.8%), daratumumab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (5.9%) and daratumumab-VD (5.2%). Median time to next treatment (TTNT) from 2 nd line therapy has improved over the course of the three time periods (p<0.01; Figure 1C): years 2003-2008, 10.4 months; years 2009-2014, 13.2 months; and years 2014-2021, 16.6 months. Similarly, the median overall survival from 1 st relapse has increased over the three intervals: 30.9 months, 48.4 months, and 65.8 months, respectively. Conclusions Over the past two decades, the effectiveness of 2 nd line treatment has improved, reflected by improved TTNT from 2 nd line therapy. With the introduction of new agents in 2012-2015 (carfilzomib, pomalidomide and daratumumab) and favorable results for triplets demonstrated in randomized trials, the triplet therapies started to be used more frequently. Over time, the landscape of 2 nd line therapies has become more diverse, which may reflect a more individualized approach to each patient. Moreover, the large variety of treatment strategies makes comparisons more and more challenging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Sanofi: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

The Ki67/CD138 Ratio Independently Predicts Overall Survival in the Upfront Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2016-2016
Author(s):  
Tomer M Mark ◽  
Peter Forsberg ◽  
Ihsane Ouansafi ◽  
Adriana C Rossi ◽  
Roger N Pearse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background: Assessment of malignant plasma cell cycling via plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) has been a validated prognostic tool in multiple myeloma (MM) but the test requires specialized technical expertise and is not widely available. Ki67 is a well-known protein marker of cellular proliferation on immunohistochemical (IHC) staining with prognostic utility in other malignancies. In an effort to develop a simpler system to provide analogous information to PCLI, we used a novel IHC co-staining technique for CD138 and Ki67 to quantify plasma cells in active cycling. We then performed a retrospective analysis of the ratio of Ki67/CD138 (Ki67%) in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma receiving 1st-line therapy to correlate with clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients (pts) with treated symptomatic MM was performed by interrogation of the clinical database at the Weill Cornell Medical College / New York Presbyterian Hospital. For inclusion in the analysis, subjects must have started first-line treatment in the period of 2005-2010, and had available bone marrow biopsies. Double-staining with Ki67 and CD138 was performed by IHC. The Ki67% was calculated as the percent of plasma cells expressing CD138 that were also found to express Ki67. Treatment outcomes were stratified and compared based on %Ki67. Response was determined by monthly serum protein electrophoresis / immunofixation (IFX) with free light chain analysis according to International Multiple Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines. Pts who were IFX negative but had no subsequent bone marrow biopsy were classified as being in unconfirmed complete remission. Results: We identified 151 patients with newly diagnosed MM and available %Ki67 expression who received first-line therapy over the period of 2005-2010. Patient were subdivided into two groups based on %Ki67: Low: %ki67 <= 5%, n = 87; and High: %Ki67 >5, n=64, to allow for comparison of treatment response and survival analysis. Specific therapeutic agent exposure history did not differ significantly between patients. Both groups had similar depth of response rates (ORR) to front-line therapy, Table 1. Median progression-free survival for the high versus low %Ki67 groups approached statistical significance at 54 months (95% CI 30.8,67.4) versus 26.9 months (95% CI 21.6,40.2), respectively (P = 0.083). At data cut-off, there were 30 deaths in the low %Ki67 group (1-yr OS 93%, 5-yr OS 71%) and 36 deaths in the high %Ki67 group (1-yr OS 94%, 5-yr OS 62%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached for Ki67% <= 5% (95% CI 97.3,NR) vs. 78.9 months (95% CI 55.9,93.1) for Ki67% > 5%, (P = 0.0434), Figure 1. Multivariate cox regression for factors with influence on OS showed that only high-risk cytogenetics (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17, 2.92, P = 0.027), ISS (HR 1.835, 95% CI 1.33, 3.60, P = 0.000), and %Ki67 group status had an independent effect on survival outcome. Low (<=5%) versus high (>5%) %Ki67 influenced overall survival with a hazard ratio of 1.76 (CI 1.07,2.92, P = 0.027). Survival after ASCT was significantly longer in the low %Ki67 group with median OS not reached (95%CI, 97.3, NR) versus 86.9 months (95% CI 43.9, NR) for high %Ki67 group (P = 0.04). Discussion: The ratio of IHC double positive Ki67 and CD138 of > 5% is an independent prognostic marker for overall survival in newly diagnosed MM undergoing 1st line therapy. The %Ki67 serves as a simpler and widely available analog to PCLI that can be presently performed in most hematopathology laboratories. Table 1: First Line Treatment and Best Response (modified IMWG Criteria) Ki67% <= 5(N = 87)n (%) Ki67% > 5(N = 64)n (%) P Treatment Exposure* Lenalidomide 59 (67.8) 48 (75) 0.34 Thalidomide 30 (34.5) 14 (21.9) 0.09 Bortezomib 25 (28.7) 14 (21.9) 0.34 Alkylating agent 11 (12.6) 4 (6.3) 0.19 ASCT 27 (31) 22 (34.4) 0.66 Best Response Overall Response (>= Partial response) 77 (88.4) 57 (89.1) 0.41 Complete response 15 (17.2) 22 (34.4) Unconfirmed complete response** 14 (16.1) 8 (12.5) Very good partial response 23 (26.4) 15 (23.4) Partial response 25 (28.7) 12 (18.8) Stable disease 9 (10.3) 5 (7.8) Progressive disease 1 (1.2) 2 (3.1) * Percentages do not add to 100% due to instances of concurrent therapy use ** Unconfirmed complete response: immunofixation negative, but no confirmatory bone marrow biopsy available Figure 1 Overall Survival by %Ki67 Figure 1. Overall Survival by %Ki67 Disclosures Mark: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rossi:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Pekle:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Perry:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Coleman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria. Niesvizky:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Analysis of Outcomes of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treated in Randomized Clinical Trials

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4000-4000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffi Tchekmedyian ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Aaron T. Gerds ◽  
Navneet Majhail ◽  
Hetty E. Carraway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Past ◽  
American Society ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Introduction The major reasons for failure to achieve cure in the majority of AML patients (pts) are primary refractoriness of disease to initial chemotherapy or failure to maintain complete remission (CR) that has been achieved (relapse). There is no uniformly accepted standard treatment for relapsed or refractory (RR) AML, with most available therapies regarded as palliative or as a bridge to allogeneic transplantation. While the past two decades have witnessed trials of several investigational therapies in RR AML, data regarding the effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. We studied the impact of experimental drugs in RR AML pts by undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported in the past 3 decades. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register electronic databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference abstracts from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Hematology Association (EHA) websites covering a period from 1988 to 2015. Key words used during this search included "refractory" or "relapsed" or "AML" or "phase II" or "phase III" or "randomized". Only double-arm, phase II with a sample size of at least 50 pts and phase III RCTs conducted in RR AML pts were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study methods, participants, therapies, and outcomes from all eligible trials: differences in how to classify agents in RCTs were resolved by discussion. The primary outcomes examined in the experimental arms (EAs) and standard arms (SAs) included CR rates, disease-free survival (DFS), refractory disease rates, treatment-related mortality (TRM) rates and overall survival (OS). Odds ratios (OR) were used to summarize differences between EAs and SAs. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to compare them and to assess the overall impact of time. Results Of 5500 included pts, 40.5% were treated on 21 double-arm, phase II trials, 51% on 10 phase III trials and 6.6% analyzed through 4 retrospective studies. There was no change in CR rates in either EAs (p=.21) or SAs (p=.15) over time (Figure 1). The CR rates in EAs tended to be higher than in SAs [OR=1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.50, p=.03). Rates of disease refractoriness to salvage regimens in both EAs (p=.70) and CAs (p=.31) did not change over time and these rates were not significantly different between treatment arms [OR=0.82; 95% CI, 0.62-1.08, p=.16]. TRM rates tended to decrease over time but the change was not significant in either group [p=.24 for SAs and p=.33 for EAs]. TRM rates were higher in SAs compared to CAs but did not reach statistical significance [OR=1.21; 95% CI, 0.97-1.50, p=.09]. Over time, there was no significant change inDFS in either group (p=.32 for CAs and p=.58 for EAs). DFS rates did not differ between EAs and SAs [OR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19, p=.89] (Figure 2). OS tended to remain stable over time in both groups [p=.85 for SAs and p=.66 for EAs]. While OS tended to be higher in SAs, it did not reach statistical significance [OR=0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05, p=.27]. Conclusions: These findings indicate a lack of significant or clinically meaningful improvement in disease outcomes, including OS, in RR AML pts treated within RCTs over the past 3 decades. Greater efforts need to be directed towards designing RCTs using novel statistical approaches and directed agents based on recent discoveries of targetable mutations. Disclosures Carraway: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxalta: Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blinatumomab: Research Funding. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mukherjee:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Genomic Profiling of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Classifies Molecular Groups with Distinct Pathogenic Phenotypes and Clinical Outcomes

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 723-723
Author(s):  
Shankara Anand ◽  
Mark Bustoros ◽  
Romanos Sklavenitis-Pistofidis ◽  
Robert A. Redd ◽  
Eileen M Boyle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Molecular Classification ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Introduction: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell malignancy commonly preceded by the asymptomatic stage smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). MM is characterized with significant genomic heterogeneity of chromosomal gains and losses (CNVs), translocations, and point mutations (SNVs); alterations that are also observed in SMM patients. However, current SMM risk models rely solely on clinical markers and do not accurately capture progression risk. While incorporating some genomic biomarkers improves prediction, using all MM genomic features to comprehensively stratify patients may increase risk stratification precision in SMM. Methods: We obtained a total of 214 patient samples at SMM diagnosis. We performed whole-exome sequencing on 166 tumors; of these, RNA sequencing was performed on 100. Targeted capture was done on 48 additional tumors. Upon binarization of DNA features, we performed consensus non-negative matrix factorization to identify distinct molecular clusters. We then trained a random forest classifier on translocations, SNVs, and CNVs. The predicted clinical outcomes for the molecular subtypes were further validated in an independent SMM cohort of 74 patients. Results: We identified six genomic subtypes, four with hyperdiploidy (&gt;48 chromosomes, HMC, HKR, HNT, HNF) and two with IgH translocations (FMD, CND) (Table 1). In multivariate analysis accounting for IMWG (20-2-20) clinical risk stages, high-risk (HMC, FMD, HKR) and intermediate-risk (HNT, HNF) genetic subtypes were independent predictors of progression (Hazards ratio [HR]: 3.8 and 5.5, P = 0.016 and 0.001, respectively). The low-risk, CND subtype harboring translocation (11;14) was enriched for the previously defined CD-2 MM signature defined by the B cell markers CD20 and CD79A (FDR = 0.003 ), showed upregulation of CCND1, E2F1, and E2F7 (FDR = 0.01, 0.0004, 0.08), and was enriched for G2M checkpoint, heme metabolism, and monocyte cell signature (FDR = 0.003, 0.003, 0.003, respectively). The FMD subtype with IgH translocations (4;14) and (14;16) was enriched for P53, mTORC1, unfolded protein signaling pathways and plasmacytoid dendritic cell signatures (FDR = 0.01, 0.005, 0.008, respectively). The HKR tumors were enriched for inflammatory cytokine signaling, MYC target genes, T regulatory cell signature, and the MM proliferative (PR) signatures (FDR = 0.02, 0.03, 0.007, 0.02, respectively). The APOBEC mutational signature was enriched in HMC and FMD tumors (P = 0.005), while there was no statistical difference across subtypes in the AID signature. The median follow-up for the primary cohort is 7.1 years. Median TTP for patients in HMC, FMD, and HKR was 3.8, 2.6, and 2.2 years, respectively; TTP for HNT and HNF was 4.3 and 5.2, respectively, while it was 11 years in CND patients (P = 0.007). Moreover, by analyzing the changes in MM clinical biomarkers over time, we found that patients from high-risk subgroups had higher odds of developing evolving hemoglobin and monoclonal protein levels over time (P = 0.01 and 0.002, respectively); Moreover, the absolute increase in M-protein was significantly higher in patients from the high-risk genetic subtypes at one, two, and five years from diagnosis (P = 0.001, 0.03, and 0,01, respectively). Applying the classifier to the external cohort replicated our findings where intermediate and high-risk genetic subgroups conferred increased risk of progression to MM in multivariate analysis after accounting for IMWG staging (HR: 5.5 and 9.8, P = 0.04 and 0.005, respectively). Interestingly, within the intermediate-risk clinical group in the primary cohort, patients in the high-risk genetic subgroups had increased risk of progression (HR: 5.2, 95% CI 1.5 - 17.3, P = 0.007). In the validation cohort, these patients also had an increased risk of progression to MM (HR: 6.7, 95% CI 1.2 - 38.3, P = 0.03), indicating that molecular classification improves the clinical risk-stratification models. Conclusion: We identified and validated in an independent dataset six SMM molecular subgroups with distinct DNA alterations, transcriptional profiles, dysregulated pathways, and risks of progression to active MM. Our results underscore the importance of molecular classification in addition to clinical evaluation in better identifying high-risk SMM patients. Moreover, these subgroups may be used to identify tumor vulnerabilities and target them with precision medicine efforts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bustoros: Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Casneuf: Janssen: Current Employment. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Walker: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau. Davies: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dimopoulos: Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bergsagel: Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yong: BMS: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Getz: IBM, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Scorpion Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghobrial: AbbVie, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BMS, Cellectar, Curio Science, Genetch, Janssen, Janssen Central American and Caribbean, Karyopharm, Medscape, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda, The Binding Site, GNS, GSK: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Comparison of Denosumab Versus Intravenous (IV) Bisphosphonate Use for Hypercalcemia in Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Matthew M Lei ◽  
Erica Tavares ◽  
Uvette Lou ◽  
Evan Buzgo ◽  
Noopur S. Raje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Additional Dose ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
The Past

Background Hypercalcemia (HC) is a frequent complication of multiple myeloma (MM) occurring in 20-30% of patients. This is often associated with renal dysfunction and both features are important myeloma defining events resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits RANKL, has been evaluated in the prevention of skeletal related events in patients with newly diagnosed MM, as well as the treatment of bisphosphonate-refractory HC of malignancy (HCM). Cases of denosumab for HCM in MM patients with renal dysfunction have been described. Both denosumab and IV bisphosphonates (IVB) represent treatment options for HC in MM. We describe a comparison of patients with MM with HC who received denosumab vs IVBs. Methods We retrospectively identified patients age ≥18 with a diagnosis of MM with HC (corrected serum calcium level [CSC] &gt;10.5 mg/dL). Patients were included if they received either denosumab or IVB (zoledronic acid [ZA] or pamidronate), between April 2016 and June 2020. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as normalization of CSC to less than 10.5 mg/dL. Secondary endpoints included HC relapse (CSC &gt;10.5 mg/dL) and safety. Hypocalcemia was graded per CTCAE v5. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined using KGIDO criteria. Patients were followed-up for 56 days. Bivariate analyses were performed. Results A total of 40 patients were included with 18 in the denosumab group and 22 in the IVB group, of whom 15 (68%) received ZA and 7 (32%) received pamidronate. Baseline characteristics are described in Table 1. Patients with newly diagnosed MM composed 33% and 55% of the denosumab and IVB groups, respectively. All patients in the denosumab group received 120 mg except one who received 60 mg, while in the IVB group, dose reductions occurred in 5/15 patients who received ZA (median dose, 4 mg; range, 3.3-4) and 4/7 patients who received pamidronate (median dose, 60 mg; range, 30-90). Most patients received HC treatment as an inpatient (58% inpatient vs. 42% outpatient). A minority of patients had received IVBs in the past 90 days. The mean CSC was 12.5 mg/dL (standard deviation [SD], 1.40) and 13.3 mg/dL (SD, 2.39) in the denosumab and IVB groups, respectively. Baseline serum creatinine (SCr) was higher and creatinine clearance (CrCl) was lower in the denosumab group (median SCr, 2.06 vs. 1.24 mg/dL, p=0.048; median CrCl, 33 vs. 48 mL/min, p=0.048). The CR rate by day 3-4 was 92% and 94% in the denosumab and IVB groups, respectively (p=NS). HC relapse occurred in 2 (12%) and 6 (29%) patients in the denosumab and IVB groups, respectively (p=0.257). Incidence of grade 1 hypocalcemia was similar between groups; however, incidence of grade ≥2 hypocalcemia was higher in the denosumab group. Incidence of new AKI was 28% (5/18) in the denosumab group 23% (5/22) in the IVB group (p=0.71). No patients in the denosumab group received an additional dose of denosumab within 14 days of initial dose. Three patients in the IVB group received an additional dose of an IVB within 14 days of initial dose. One patient, who was in the denosumab group, had refractory hypercalcemia and had not achieved CR at day 56. Conclusions We describe our experience with denosumab and IVB for the management of HC in patients with MM. The CR rate at 3-4 days was similar with either agent in our MM only population that was not bisphosphonate refractory. A higher incidence of grade 2 hypocalcemia was noted in the denosumab group. Conclusions on renal safety are limited by the small sample size and that patients in the denosumab group had a higher SCr on presentation. Denosumab and IVB represent acceptable agents for the management of HC in MM patients with further investigation necessary in those with renal dysfunction. Disclosures Lei: Fresenius Kabi USA: Consultancy; Trapelo Health: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Clovis Oncology: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Blueprint Medicines: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Lou:Fresenius Kabi USA: Consultancy. Raje:Bluebird, Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Immuneel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy. Yee:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Denosumab is indicated for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy refractory to bisphosphonate therapy. We describe the use of denosumab for hypercalcemia of malignancy in a multiple myeloma only patient population that is not bisphosphonate refractory. The use of denosumab for these patients was part of normal clinical practice in adherence to institutional policies and guidelines.

The Use of Chemoimmunotherapy Improves the Outcome of Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia (CLL) – a Metaanalysis of Five Trials of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG)

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 3936-3936
Author(s):  
Paula Cramer ◽  
Susanne Isfort ◽  
Jasmin Bahlo ◽  
Raymonde Busch ◽  
Petra Langerbeins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Travel Grant

Abstract Abstract 3936 Introduction: A substantial improvement of treatment outcomes in patients with CLL was achieved during the last decades, but almost all patients (pts) eventually relapse. According to ESMO-guidelines, a repetition of 1st-line therapy is a reasonable approach in case of a relapse >24 months after initial treatment [Eichhorst et al., Ann Oncol., 2011]. This recommendation has not yet been confirmed by clinical trials and little is known which therapy should be chosen in case of an earlier relapse. Methods: 1558 pts treated in five prospective trials of the GCLLSG were included in the analysis. Three randomised phase-III-trials for 1st-line treatment evaluated fludarabine (F) vs. F + cyclophosphamide (FC) [CLL4], chlorambucile (Clb) vs. F [CLL5] and FC without or with rituximab (FCR) [CLL8]. Two trials were designed for both 1st-line and relapse treatment and tested FC + alemtuzumab (FCC) [CLL2L] as well as bendamustine + rituximab (BR) [CLL2M]. For statistical analyses Kaplan-Meier estimators and curves, as well as log-rank tests were used. Results: Most common 1st-line therapies were those tested in the above mentioned five GCLLSG-trials: 588 pts received FC (38%), 402 pts FCR (26%), 299 pts F (19%), 134 pts Clb with/without steroids (9%) and 116 pts BR (7%). Treatment-free (TFS) and overall survival (OS) were shorter in pts treated with Clb, F or FC in comparison to patients treated with FCR or BR chemoimmunotherapy (see figure 1). So far, 704 of 1558 pts received 2nd-line treatment for progressive CLL. These 2nd-line therapies were quite heterogeneous, most common regimen were: FC (79 pts, 11%), BR (75 pts, 11%), F (65 pts, 9%), B with/without steroids (63 pts, 9%), CHOP-R (56 pts, 8%), Clb with/without steroids (55pts, 8%), FCR (54 pts, 8%), as well as alemtuzumab with/without steroids (43 pts, 6%) and FCC (32 pts, 5%). Patients treated with antibody-based regimen had a significantly longer OS than patients never treated with antibodies (OS after 60 months: 76% vs 64%, p<0,001). However, the timepoint of administration of the antibody (1st-line vs. ≥2nd-line treatment) appeared to be less important. 315 pts requiring a 2nd-line therapy within 24 months after initial treatment were identified. Treatment regimen were heterogeneous, most common therapies were the combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicine, vincristine, and prednisolone either with rituximab (R-CHOP, n=32) or without (CHOP, n=24) and alemtuzumab (n=27). Treatment regimens were summarized to 3 different groups: therapies containing an antibody with/without <3 cytotoxic agents, single-agent chemotherapies, and therapies containing anthracyclines and/or ≥3 cytotoxic agents. TFS for all three groups was 24.5, 18.7 and 16.4 months (p=0.009) and OS was 78.3, 58.2, and 42.0 months (p=0.012). Aside from a higher median age in the single-agent chemotherapy group no differences in other baseline-characteristics were found. Conclusion: This metaanalysis confirms that the use of monoclonal antibodies in 1st-line and relapse therapy leads to a prolongation of TFS and OS. In patients with a relapse ≤24 months, the use of standard-chemoimmunotherapies or single-agent alemtuzumab seems to be more efficient compared to therapies that contain ≥3 cytotoxic agents and/or anthracyclines (e.g. R-CHOP, CHOP or FCM). In addition, the poor outcome of early relapsing patients underscores the need for alternative treatment approaches with either allogeneic stem cell transplantation or use of novel drugs in order to further improve the survival of these pts. Disclosures: Cramer: Roche: Travel grant Other; Mundipharma: Travel grant, Travel grant Other. Bahlo:Roche: Honoraria. Fink:Roche: Travel grant Other. Goede:Roche: Honoraria, Travel grant Other. Elter:Roche: Honoraria, Travel grant Other. Stilgenbauer:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wendtner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fischer:Roche: Honoraria, travel grants Other; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Hallek:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Eichhorst:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Randomized Phase 3 Trial Of Melphalan-Lenalidomide-Prednisone (MPR) Or Cyclophosphamide-Prednisone-Lenalidomide (CPR) Vs Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethsone (Rd) In Elderly Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 536-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Massimo Offidani ◽  
Giuseppe Pietrantuono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Rd and MPR are effective treatments in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). In this study we compared a non-alkylating containing regimen (Rd) vs alkylating-based regimens (MPR/CPR) in elderly transplant ineligible NDMM pts. Methods Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nine 28-day cycles of MPR/CPR or Rd. MPR: lenalidomide 10 mg/day for 21 days; melphalan orally 0.18 mg/Kg for 4 days in pts 65-75 years old and 0.13 mg/Kg in >75 years pts; prednisone 1.5 mg/Kg for 4 days; CPR: cyclophosphamide orally 50 mg/day for 21 days in pts 65-75 years old and 50 mg every other day (eod) in >75 years pts; lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; prednisone 25 mg every other day. Rd: lenalidomide 25 mg/day for 21 days; dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1,8,15 and 22 in pts 65-75 years old and 20 mg in those >75 years. After induction, patients were randomized to receive maintenance with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day for 21 days) or with prednisone (25 mg eod on days 1-28), until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between October 2009 and October 2012, 659 pts were enrolled ( MPR/CPR:439 and Rd:220), and 641 pts were evaluable (MPR/CPR:430 and Rd:211). Patient characteristics were well balanced in the 2 groups: median age was 73 years in both groups, 38% of pts were older than 75 years, 27% had ISS stage III in both groups, 21% of patients both in the MPR/CPR and in the Rd groups had unfavorable FISH profile [t(4;14) or t (14;16) or del17p]. After induction, the response rates were similar in the 2 groups: at least PR rate was 75% versus 79% (p=0.52) and CR rate was 9% versus 7% (p=0.35), in the MPR/CPR and Rd group, respectively. No significant difference in response rate were reported between two alkylating containing regimens. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 2-year PFS was 55% in MPR/CPR and 49% in Rd (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.66-1.12, p=0.26), and 2-year OS was 84% in MPR/CPR and 80% in Rd (HR= 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60-1.41, p=0.71) At least one grade ≥3 hematological adverse event was reported in 51% with MPR/CPR and 29% with Rd (p<0.001), with a significant difference between the two alkylating agents (67% MPR and 31% CPR, p<0.001). At least one grade ≥3 extra-hematologic toxicities were similar in the two groups (31% with MPR/CPR and 28% with Rd, p=0.77). with no difference between two alkylating agents (31% both in MPR and CPR group). Second primary malignancies (SPM) were reported in 5 MPR patients (1 hematologic and 4 solid) in 1 CPR patient (hematologic) and in 2 Rd patients (both solid). Conclusion In a community-based population, triplet alkylating combinations did not lead to different PFS or OS clinical benefits over doublet therapy. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Palumbo: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bringhen:Celgene: Honoraria. Giuliani:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavallo:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hajek:Celgene: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Boccadoro:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals Real-World Outcomes for Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone, or Bortezomib and Dexamethasone: An Enhanced Electronic Health Records Database Analysis

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2243-2243
Author(s):  
Ajai Chari ◽  
Brian Ung ◽  
Marc Tian ◽  
Amit Agarwal ◽  
Kejal Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: For transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), the only category 1 regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd)-based, including triplet therapy with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) (NCCN Myeloma v4.2018). Other doublet regimens, such as bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd), are still a first-line option for patients with NDMM, especially for those who are elderly and/or frail. However, the latter population is either excluded or markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. Using an electronic health records (EHRs) database, we compared outcomes when either RVd or Vd were used in the treatment of transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in a real-world practice setting, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical differences between the two cohorts. Methods: A retrospective observational study of patients with NDMM was conducted using EHRs from a nationally representative database (Flatiron Health). The Flatiron Network database is an enhanced oncology EHR database of patients treated at 265 clinics throughout the USA. Patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma, ICD-9 (203.0x) or ICD-10 (C90.xx), between January 2011 and May 2018 who were treated with RVd or Vd and did not undergo stem cell transplantation were included in the analysis. The primary comparison was time to next therapy (TTNT) in the overall population and in a subset of frail patients, as determined by a composite score based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Data regarding overall and progression-free survival (PFS) were limited as patient data prior to adoption of the Flatiron Network database were incomplete. Treatment-free interval (TFI) for patients who initiated a second-line therapy was defined as time from start of first-line to start of second-line therapy minus the duration of therapy (DOT). The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate TTNT after adjusting for differences in patient baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of the 8,470 transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM in the database, 2,369 were treated with either RVd (n = 1,309) or Vd (n = 1,060) and met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Patients treated with Vd were more likely to be older (median age 75 vs 70 years; P < 0.0001), frail (76.3% vs 65.4%; P = 0.0002), have creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min (23.9% vs 10.7%, P < 0.0001), have a higher ECOG PS score (P = 0.0031), and have International Staging System stage III disease (45.1% vs 28.8%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in baseline neutropenia, anemia, or thrombocytopenia, or in median CCI. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was lower in the Vd group (19.7% vs 26.0%; P < 0.0001). The mean DOT was longer for RVd (11.4 ± standard deviation [SD] 13.3 months) than for Vd (7.7 ± SD 9.7 months). However, the median adjusted TTNT was significantly longer with RVd than Vd (40.9 vs 14.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.55; P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients initiating a new treatment was lower in the RVd group (24.8% vs 40.6%; P < 0.0001). Among those who initiated a second-line therapy, the mean TFI for RVd compared with Vd was 42.6 versus 39.3 days, respectively (P = 0.2214). Among the 735 frail patients (416 RVd and 319 Vd), the median TTNT was significantly longer with RVd (32.6 vs 17.1 months; HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.54; P < 0.0001; Figure). Similar to the overall population, there were no significant differences in TFI (54.9 vs 29.6 days, P = 0.2598) and a significantly higher proportion of Vd patients initiated a new treatment (22.1% vs 36.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world practice setting where PFS cannot be measured directly, triplet therapy with RVd significantly prolonged TTNT compared with Vd by 26.1 months in the overall patient population, and by 15.5 months in frail transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Disclosures Chari: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; The Binding Site: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Ung:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Tian:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Agarwal:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Parikh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership.

scholarly journals Enrolment and Outcomes of Ethnic Minorities with Multiple Myeloma Treated in UK Myeloma Research Alliance (UK-MRA) Clinical Trials over 18 Years

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4118-4118
Author(s):  
Rakesh Popat ◽  
Zoe Craig ◽  
Faith E Davies ◽  
David Cairns ◽  
Catherine Olivier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Introduction: The incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) varies by ethnicity with Black patients approximately twice as likely to develop MM compared to White or Asian (Black: White males 2.9:1, females 2.2:1). The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) in 2015 reported the incidence of MM by ethnicity in England over 10 years to be 85.5% White; 5.4% Black; 3.6% Asian and 1.9% Other. Ethnic minorities have been reported to be under-represented in clinical trials partly because of socio-economic factors; however, it is unknown if these disparities exist in state funded health care systems where access to healthcare is free and should be equitable. Methods: Ethnicity, baseline demographics, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were collected from patients enrolled into 1 st line UK academic transplant eligible (TE) and transplant non-eligible (TNE) - Myeloma IX, XI and XIV trials, and at 1 st relapse - Myeloma X and XII clinical trials. These trials enrolled from 2003 to 2021. The Myeloma XII and XIV (FiTNEss) trials are currently enrolling, all other trials have closed. Ethnicity was coded by White, Black, Asian and Other in line with Office for National Statistics (ONS) categories. Patients were enrolled across 120 centres covering a wide geographical distribution in the UK. These studies were designed to have permissive eligibility criteria to enrol as close to real world patients as possible. Baseline characteristics were summarised descriptively and comparisons made using the chi-squared test. Comparisons with population-level data used one-sample chi-squared tests. Survivor functions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the logrank test. Cox proportional hazards models with suitable interaction terms were used to test for heterogeneity. All tests were called significant at the 5% level. Results: 7,291 patients were enrolled across 5 randomised controlled trials over 18 years. Overall, the ethnic distribution was White 93.8%, Black 2.2%, Asian 1.8%, Other 0.6% and unknown 1.6%. The skew to enrolment of White patients was more apparent in the TNE studies (Myeloma IX non-intensive: White 97.4%, Black 1.3%, Asian 0.4%; Myeloma XI non-intensive: White 94.5%, Black 1.8%, Asian 1.6%, Myeloma XIV: White 94.2%, Black 0%, Asian 3.2%). This was different to the incidence of myeloma cases across the UK with the difference most apparent in TNE studies (TE trials (observed vs NCRAS, P &lt; 0.0001); TNE trials (observed vs NCRAS, P &lt; 0.0001); 1 st relapse trials (observed vs NCRAS, P = 0.035)). Enrolment distribution by ethnicity was consistent over the 18 years, with no change in diversity over time despite there being an increase in UK non-white populations. In the Myeloma IX trial, there was no significant difference in age at enrolment; however, the performance status in Black patients was worse than non-Black (P = 0.045), there was fewer cytogenetic high risk Black patients (P = 0.007) and less ISS 1 Black patients vs non-Black (P = 0.0416). There were no demographic differences by ethnicity in the Myeloma XI trial. The outcomes of patients by PFS or OS by ethnic group was similar within each trial (figure 1). An overall improvement in OS for was demonstrated over time from Myeloma IX to the Myeloma XI trial with the incorporation of novel agents (median OS MRC-Myeloma IX: 48 months vs. median OS NCRI Myeloma-XI: 70 months, P &lt; 0.0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of effect with respect to ethnicity (P = 0.456) suggesting all ethnic sub-groups benefited from this improvement in OS. Conclusions: Enrolment of ethnic minorities into academic clinical trials in the UK was below that expected despite enrolling from &gt;100 geographically spread sites and intended equitable access to healthcare. All ethnic groups derived an OS benefit from novel agents within trials that were not otherwise routinely available; however, a substantial proportion of ethnic minorities were not enrolled particularly TNE patients, thereby limiting their survival gains. Understanding causes of inequality and addressing these is a priority for the UK-MRA to ensure that all groups can potentially benefit, and trial results are representative of the UK population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Popat: Abbvie, Takeda, Janssen, and Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Oncopeptides, and Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen and BMS: Other: travel expenses. Craig: Celgene: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe & Dohme: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Davies: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cairns: Amgen: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Other: travel support, Research Funding. Olivier: Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Morgan: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cook: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Revlimid and carfilzomib combinations are used off label

scholarly journals Global Expression Changes of Malignant Plasma Cells over Time Reveals the Evolutionary Development of Signatures of Aggressive Clinical Behavior

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4457-4457
Author(s):  
Eileen M Boyle ◽  
Adam Rosenthal ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
Phil Farmer ◽  
Michael W Rutherford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Plasma Cells ◽  
Adverse Outcome ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Introduction: Clustering of gene expression signatures at diagnosis has identified a number of distinct disease groups that correlate with outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). Some of these are defined by an etiologic genetic event whereas others, such as the proliferation cluster (PR) and GEP70 risk relate to acquired clinical behaviors regardless of the underlying background. The PR cluster has a number of important features, including markers of proliferation, and has been associated with an adverse outcome. This logic led us to study how gene expression patterns change over time with the aim of gaining insight into acquired features that could be targeted therapeutically or be used to predict outcome. Methods: We followed 784 newly diagnosed MM patients from the Total Therapy trials over a median of 9.5 years for whom repeated GEP of CD138+ plasma cells using Affymetrix U133 Plus 2.0 plus arrays were obtained. Raw data were MAS5 normalized and GEP70-based high-risk (HR) scores, translocation classification (TC) and molecular cluster classification were derived, as previously reported. Results: At diagnosis, 85.9% percent of patients (666/784) were identified as low-risk (LR). Among them, 23.1% (154/666) went on to develop HR status (defined by a GEP70 score > 0.66) at least once after initial diagnosis. Among the non-PR cases, 28.5% (193/677) were seen to develop a PR phenotype at some point during follow-up. Similarly, among the PR patients (n=107), we observed that 43.1% (25/58) identified as LR by GEP70 at presentation eventually develop HR status at least once during follow-up. We further analyzed 147 patients with paired diagnosis and relapse samples. Seventeen percent of patients (25/147) were PR at diagnosis. Most patients were from favorable TC prognostic groups [80% D1-D2, 8% t(11;14), 8% t(4;14) and 4% t(14;20)]. Seventy-six percent of PR patients remained PR at relapse (19/25) whereas 23% switched cluster in accordance to their translocation group. Fifteen percent of patients (22/147) became PR at relapse. They originated from four clusters and three TC groups [77% from the D1-D2, 14% t(4;14) and 9% from the t(11;14)]. Overall-survival from the time of relapse was inferior for patients categorized as PR at relapse compared to other subgroups (p< 0.0001); among PR patients at relapse, there was no difference in outcome between patients classified as PR or non-PR at diagnosis (p= 0.74). When looking at GEP70 defined risk scores, the incidence of HR status rose from 23% to 39% between diagnosis and relapse with a significant increase in mean GEP70 scores using paired t-test (p<0.0001). Patients identified as HR by GEP70 at relapse had an inferior post-relapse outcome compared to patients identified as LR (p< 0.0001); there was no difference in the outcome of patients identified as HR at relapse depending on their risk status at diagnosis (p = 0.10). Discussion: Following the introduction of therapeutic regimens aimed at maximizing response, long term survival in MM has improved. This also led to an apparent increase in the development of more aggressive disease patterns at relapse including extra-medullary disease and plasma cell leukemia. Here we show, that HR features both in terms of PR and GEP70 risk status, develop as a variable over time. At relapse, most acquired HR cases originate from standard-risk presentation cases, suggesting selective pressure for HR features. Moreover, we show that the detection of such behaviors is associated with an adverse outcome from the time of relapse. These data also suggest that repeating GEP during follow-up adds precision to better comprehend individual risk and may help identify patient specific therapeutic strategies. Indeed, understanding how these patterns develop, which genes are implicated, and their impact on the immune microenvironment should allow us to effectively utilize a wide array of treatment approaches ranging from immune-therapies to novel cell-cycle targeting agents to specifically address this type of aggressive behavior. Conclusion: The acquisition of high risk patterns captured by GEP70 risk and PR status is an ongoing process from initial diagnosis. Such high risk prognostic features have an adverse outcome from the time of development. Repeating GEP during follow-up may therefore help better predict outcome and identify patient specific therapeutic strategies. Disclosures Boyle: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; La Fondation de Frace: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants. Dumontet:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria. Facon:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Barlogie:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: travel stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: travel stipend; Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: travel stipend; Millenium: Consultancy, Research Funding; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: travel stipend; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: : Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: travel stipend. Davies:TRM Oncology: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MMRF: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Following Initial Relapse in Patients with Relapsed Systemic Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3338-3338
Author(s):  
Nidhi Tandon ◽  
Surbhi Sidana ◽  
Morie A. Gertz ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Al Amyloidosis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Introduction Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL Amyloidosis) is a plasma cell disorder characterized by deposition of misfolded insoluble protein fibrils (composed of monoclonal κ or λ light chains) in tissues causing progressive organ dysfunction. Chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), when eligible, are standard treatment options but relapses remain inevitable for most patients. However, there is a paucity of literature describing relapsed or refractory patients. We performed a retrospective study to analyze the outcomes upon relapse and the impact of type of therapy and retreatment with the same therapy at relapse. Methods Clinical and laboratory data of 1327 consecutive patients with systemic AL amyloidosis seen at Mayo Clinic within 90 days of their diagnosis, between 2006 and 2015, was collected by chart review and analyzed retrospectively. Of these patients, 219 (16.5%) were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining 1108 patients, 366 patients experienced a documented hematological or organ relapse or progression requiring change of first line or start of second line therapy and form the current study population. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of second line treatment or progression mandating therapy until death from any cause or the date of last follow up. The OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test was used to estimate the difference in survival curves. Results The median age was 62.8 years (36.1 - 85.3); 63.1% were males; 64.7% / 59.3% / 11.4% had cardiac / renal / hepatic involvement and 24.2% / 32.1% / 23.3% / 20.3% had MS I/II/III/IV. The median estimated follow up for this cohort was 69.4 months (95% CI; 64.4, 76.8) from the start of first line therapy and 45.2 months (95% CI; 36.5, 50.6) from the start of second line therapy or progression requiring treatment. The median time to second line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 16.2 months (1-93) from the start of first line therapy. At relapse, 14 patients underwent ASCT, 165 were treated with proteasome inhibitor (PI) based therapy, 83 with immunomodulator (IMiD) based therapy, 33 with alkylator based therapy, 15 with a combination of PI and IMiD, 10 with steroids, 8 with other therapies and 38 did not receive treatment. Among the 366 patients, 124 (33.9%) required change or reinstitution of therapy during follow up at the time of analysis. The median time to third line treatment or relapse /progression mandating therapy was 31 months (95% CI; 24, 40.5) from the start of second line treatment. The median overall survival (OS) was 76.4 months (95% CI; 65.2, 83.6) from the start of first line therapy and 38.8 months (95% CI; 29.6, 52.6) from the start of second line therapy. The type of therapy at relapse (ASCT vs PI vs IMiD vs melphalan vs steroids and others) did not alter the time to next therapy (ASCT, 43.1m; PI, 31m; IMiD, 37m; melphalan, 20.8m; steroids and others, 20m; p=0.3) and OS (ASCT, 66.9m; PI, 51.1m; IMiD, 51.3m; melphalan, 37.2m; steroids and others, 80.7m; p=0.9) from the start of the second line treatment; as depicted in Figure 1. Retreatment with a different drug class (as the first line treatment) at relapse significantly reduced the time to next treatment (32.3m vs 22 m; p= 0.01) as compared to same therapy; but did not have any impact on survival (30.8m vs 51.1m; p = 0.5); as presented in Figure 2. Conclusion This study provides novel information about outcomes of patients with systemic AL amyloidosis who relapse or progress after first line therapy which could be useful in planning salvage therapies and designing clinical trials. Retreatment with a different therapy at relapse improves time to next therapy but does not impact OS. Hence, we conclude that the patients can fare well post relapse/ progression and can benefit from various treatment regimens including retreatment with the same agent. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jannsen: Research Funding; pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:BMS: Consultancy; Kesios: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document